Why worship Mary?

[amariselle]

Amariselle: Most of your arguments revolve around the question of where in Scripture a particular idea is.

Correct. I am of the belief that we should always “test” all things by God’s inspired word.

This needs a whole different thread,

I disagree. I think asking for reference from Scripture is entirely appropriate and helpful to this discussion.

but Catholics do not believe that revelation is limited to the Bible.

Yes. I am aware of that.

The question is whether God is still revealing His truth to His people or whether that stopped after the Bible as we know it was assembled.

Scripture plainly tells us the faith was once delivered to the saints and it is this faith all Christians are exhorted to “earnestly contend” for. (Jude 3) No “new” revelations, if there are such, can contradict or oppose His inspired word. The faith “once delivered” is not changing or evolving over time.

John said, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

Many use that verse to argue for unbiblical teachings and traditions. We can be sure that nothing else Jesus said or did would contradict what we have written in His word. God is not the Author of confusion and He will not go against His inspired word.

And Jesus told the disciples that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth and show them things to come.

Indeed He did and He kept that promise. What He revealed, we have written and preserved for us in His word to this day. It does indeed tell us many things which are sill yet to come.

Why should we believe that revealed truth stopped just because humans assembled a book of inspired writings and called it God's word?

That word you refer to as merely “human assembled” is in fact God’s inspired word. It is not the product of man. The faith has been once delivered. There are many today who are claiming “new revelation” from God. Why should we believe all the “new” additions to the faith that were added over time? By what standard should we “test” them to know if they truly are from God?

I'm not the best person to defend Marian doctrine. I suppose there are those who veer away from reverence for Mary and worship her, which is indeed wrong.

Agreed. And yet, once one goes beyond Scripture and God’s instruction, one does run the risk of going to far.

Even though I'm a Catholic, I spent many years away from the Church and am familiar with most of the arguments against Marian doctrine, so I have my own issues with it. But I will say that at times when I felt like I needed a matronly shoulder to cry on, since my own mother and grandparents are gone, it was a comfort to me to talk to Mary. Did she hear me? I don't know. I like to think that she did.

Just an honest question, how can Mary hear the prayers of millions if she is not omniscient or omnipresent?

I can't defend the "Our Lady of Fatima" promise of salvation either, without looking into that more thoroughly.

I’ve looked into it quite thoroughly, from Catholic sources. It started when I read a book on Fatima that belonged to my Catholic grandmother and I have since done significant research from other Catholic sources as well. Mary did indeed promise salvation to all those devoted to her “Immaculate Heart.” In doing so “she” absolutely pointed to herself as a means of salvation.

The problem is, Mary cannot offer salvation to anyone, it is not hers to give. She did not die on the cross, she was not the “propitiation” for sin. This was “another Gospel” and Paul warned that even if an “angel from Heaven” preached any other Gospel, that being is “accursed”. Those are not my words, but God’s inspired word. Very serious indeed.

For the record, I don’t believe “Our Lady of Fatima” was Mary. The real Mary would never ever have said such a thing.

I do realize that many people who object to this doctrine are thoughtful and well educated, which you clearly are. I also understand and agree with some of your objections. But there are so many things in life that we just don't understand and won't know until we pass to the other side.

Agreed. But we can know, from the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in reading His inspired word what we most definitely should stay away from. Those who stand on Biblical truth and refuse to bow or kneel before statues, images, icons or shrines do well in heeding what God Himself tells us about such practices. This is not my opinion, it is God’s word, His truth.

I returned to the Catholic Church with many objections, but the Lord told me to take a higher, less judgmental view.

Honestly, I would be concerned with that. We are indeed to “judge with righteous judgement.” We are to be discerning and we are to “test all things.” These are God’s instructions and His word has much to say about false teaching and deception. Clearly He takes this very seriously. It is not a “lower view” to adhere to God’s word in this way. We must know what we believe and why, and our beliefs should not be based on human “wisdom” or logic or on emotion. (Though at times doing so would be so much easier). Sometimes the Holy Spirit is leading one to question things and for good reason.

A lot of things started looking very different to me after I did that.

God bless you too.

One should always desire to look at things through God’s word to learn what He says about any issue. On the issue of praying to Mary and to statues, icons, images or shrines, His word is more than clear. Such things are forbidden. Many get angry or upset when they hear that, but they will need to take that up with God. He is the one who has spoken against such things, not me or any other mere, mortal and fallible human being.

God bless.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I was just pointing out that eternal reality is misunderstood by most Protestants. T

While it looks to me just like reality period, is misunderstood by some here.

That whole post was so vague, as if it hopes for us to get something out of it that helps your point, while in reality there is really nothing there at all.

 

[Eloy Craft]

While it looks to me just like reality period, is misunderstood by some here.

That whole post was so vague, as if it hopes for us to get something out of it that helps your point, while in reality there is really nothing there at all.

You made my point.

 

[W2L]

Keep in mind that the Catholic church is very ancient. In fact, all other Christian religions spring from the same root. But the Catholic church, especially, has kept many of its archaic practices and expressions. It's really good to delve into the whys of Catholic doctrine, to understand where they came from in the first place. One thing I love about Catholicism is its deep, meaningful history, its honoring of great theologians, saints, and "fathers of the church" who have contributed so much to Catholic doctrine over the centuries. Not to be insulting, but some of the more recent Protestant religions seem a bit, er, shallow to me. My husband calls them "Catholicism Lite."

Dont forget about its dark past.

 

[chevyontheriver]

One could almost be forgiven for thinking Catholicism was older than the Bible...

Well it is older than the New Testament.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Agreed. And yet, once one goes beyond Scripture and God’s instruction, one does run the risk of going to far.

Scriptures are the Word of God. The Word of God does not teach error. Can you point me to people who teach without error? If not the Word of God is not expressed on earth. So there must be an expression of the Word of God on earth among humans that doesn't teach error. It's very evident that without a human expression of the Word without error there is no expression of the Word of God on earth.

 

[Tutorman]

Well it is older than the New Testament.

Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are older than any protestant tradition like say sola scriptura, which is not even taught in the Scriptures.

 

[amariselle]

Scriptures are the Word of God. The Word of God does not teach error.

Agreed.

Can you point me to people who teach without error?

All people are fallible. God is not, neither is His written word.

If not the Word of God is not expressed on earth.

Of course it is. And much of it is not up for any kind of interpretation. If people need to be infallible for the word of God to be "expressed on earth", we are in serious trouble.

So there must be an expression of the Word of God on earth among humans that doesn't teach error.

There was, His name is Jesus. As He promised, He sent the Holy Spirit, Who is also God and teaches and leads without error. Human beings, however, are fallible. All of us.

It's very evident that without a human expression of the Word without error there is no expression of the Word of God on earth.

False. All true believers have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. There is no one on earth, no fallible human being that gets everything 100% correct all the time.

 

[The Times]

That word became the name of the woman we call Eve. But her name became woman because she was mother of all the living.

I was born in a culture that uses the term woman, for a female who has been sexually consummated by a man. Why not just accept facts my friend and just be done with it. Your not making valid arguments, in supporting your claim against a Jewish culture that uses terms in context to a female's situation.

No. Jesus said and did very little in the context of the Jewish culture of His time. He was establishing a new and radical culture. Jesus' use of the word would have that context not necessarily the ontxt of the culture at the time.

You are starting to make false statements, by saying that "Jesus said and did very little in the context of the Jewish culture of his time. He was establishing a new and radical culture".

I would like to ask you friend, what new and radical culture was he establishing, when he declared that salvation has come to the Jews first?

Now it appears in plain, that your responses are arguing against facts and this is where I give you comfort by saying....

"The TRUTH, will set you free".

 

[amariselle]

This thread was bait for Catholics and Orthodox.

That is most certainly your opinion and you are most definitely entitled to it. I cannot speak to the intent of the OP, but I came here for honest discussion. I know it's a touchy subject and people can get offended, but that is not my intention.

I'm a former Protestant pastor and I used to have the same approach.
That changed through experience and proper teaching.

You refer to "proper teaching", do you mean Biblical study and teaching, or that of the Magisterium?

These folk just want to argue to make themselves feel better. They think they do God a service by antagonizing you.

I can only speak for myself, but let me assure you that I am most definitely not here to "antagonize" anyone or to argue to make myself "feel better." As I said, I am here for honest discussion.

This will not end well and it frankly is disturbing to read the way they are casting down our Mother.

I referred to this common accusation earlier in this thread. What is "disturbing" is that those, like myself, who are willing to give Mary every honour and distinction Scripture gives her but not a bit more, are mis-characterized as insulting, hating, diminishing, "casting down", or even blaspheming Mary. This is simply not true. It is not an insult or a dishonour of Mary (or God) to stand firmly on His inspired word and refuse to go beyond it.

In the end they are choosing to reject the church.

Really? How so? Because they won't bow down to statues, images, icons or statues of Mary to pray before them? Because they won't pray to Mary and "consecrate" themselves to her "body and soul", tell her they are her "slave" or ask her to "reign over" them? Hardly. One who refuses to do such things and stands firmly on God's inspired word is not "rejecting the Church", you can be sure of that.

I've accepted that my Protestant past was virtually a different religion. If you choose to discuss the Blessed Theotokos with them, keep this in mind.

That's fine. You are free to view your Protestant past any way you like. That is of course your prerogative.

 

[The Times]

The Apostolic Church from the apostles to the Church fathers pre 431AD never declared Mary as the mother of God and certainly Mary was not venerated, within the question of salvation, atoning of sins, reconciliation with God the Father and the resurrection.

Icons and statues were not present in the Church pre 431 AD and nothing was established within the houses of prayer, that would deflect worship/veneration from Jesus to other persons, who are not inclusive within the Blood Covenant of God.

It appears the tip toe to apostasy happened from AD 431 at the council of Ephesus onwards, by the Roman Emperor Theodosius II and his bishops and lords who pushed the agenda of the Roman Pagan mother of God term. Slowly but surely over time, another gospel was to be established in order to introduce pagan mediators between man and God and in the process revert to building back up the icons and statues of pagan Rome to reflect another religion in the making, which was in vast contrast to the Apostolic Church pre 431AD.

It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen over time, as the tip toe to apostasy became evident and the handy work of God was exiled and the highway of God diverted to Rome and their elite class of noble lords who now became the many false christs/leaders and false prophets (religious techers).

The gatecrashers of the highway of God assumed their place in place of the Apostolic Church and in the process held onto this position with a strangle hold and a state based religious system of terror, that persecuted opposition and labelled heretics the handy work of God, that God originally used to setup his highway from the Apostles to the church fathers pre 431AD (Isaiah 19:23-25).

From a historical context we are looking at the hijacking of the highway of God by a line of roman emperors and their false christs/leaders and false religious prophets/teachers. The result are the schisms that followed, after the handy work of God, the Men of Nineveh were exiled and made into heretics from 431 AD (first schism) onwards.

 

[amariselle]

Thank you. My firm beliefs tend to be more about Jesus than about what others believe.

Fair enough, I never said otherwise.

Somehow you fail to quote Catholic sources, the official ones even, which say we do not worship Mary, and all the time insisting that we do even though we don't.

Actually, I most definitely shared actual Catholic prayers to Mary. Those were not Protestant prayers, nor were they Protestant critiques of Catholic prayers. Those prayers and the "consecration" to Mary that they are intended for, are very much accepted by the Catholic Church.

Your position against Mary is actually a position against Jesus.

Please explain how my refusal to go beyond the inspired word of God and to give to Mary any more honour, praise or distinction than Scripture gives her is to be "against Mary" and therefore "against Jesus." If you are going to make accusations like that, I will respectfully ask you to explain.

And that position is that the son of Mary was not God.

You know as well as I do that I never once said Jesus is not God. I honestly do not appreciate you inferring that I did or that I do not believe He is God.

That is the natural conclusion of denying that Mary was the mother of God. You have denied that Mary is the mother of God repeatedly in this thread.

Please read carefully: God pre-existed Mary, He is eternal, He has no beginning and no end. God is Mary's Creator. And yes, God has no mother. If God has a mother, than God has a beginning. To say that Mary is the mother of the divine (God) is to suggest that she pre-existed Him. A mother always pre-exists her offspring. (Obviously). God pre-existed Mary and is from everlasting to everlasting. The incarnation is in many ways a mystery and can be difficult to adequately understand or explain, but this we know: Jesus was fully God and fully man. His divinity and His humanity are not separate and yet, His divinity (as God) is eternal and did not originate with Mary. As a man Jesus had an earthly mother, as God, He does not. (And this is clearly true because we know from Scripture that God always existed and He created Mary. She, like all of us, has a beginning, God does not.)

No, we disagree. We, you and I, might agree that Mary was not before all time birthing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But I think you still maintain that we believe that as Catholics when you reject Mary as the mother of God.

See above.

What you have really done is said that Jesus was not God at his birth to his mother Mary.

No, that is what you have told me I have done. Please see above. Your accusation is false. Jesus was indeed God at His birth to Mary. (From conception, actually).

Otherwise you could say that Mary was the mother of God.

See above.

In short, you have become a Nestorian in rejecting this Catholic and Orthodox and even Protestant teaching.

False. You can call me that if you like, that won't make it true.

Nestorianism: the doctrine that there were two separate persons, one human and one divine, in the incarnate Christ. It is named after Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople (428–31), and was maintained by some ancient churches of the Middle East. A small Nestorian Church still exists in Iraq.

Now, here is what I wrote above:"Jesus was fully God and fully man. His divinity and His humanity are not separate..."

So, please explain to me how I am a "Nestorian." You seem to enjoy making false and baseless accusations. I do wish you would support them for once. I'm all for honest debate and discussion you know.

OK. Great. Why would it even be a common accusation if you love Catholics?

I have no idea. Presenting Biblical truth shouldn't lead to such accusations, but it does.

 

[The Times]

The Apostolic Church from the apostles to the Church fathers pre 431AD never declared Mary as the mother of God and certainly Mary was not venerated, within the question of salvation, atoning of sins, reconciliation with God the Father and the resurrection.

Icons and statues were not present in the Church pre 431 AD and nothing was established within the houses of prayer, that would deflect worship/veneration from Jesus to other persons, who are not inclusive within the Blood Covenant of God.

It appears the tip toe to apostasy happened from AD 431 at the council of Ephesus onwards, by the Roman Emperor Theodosius II and his bishops and lords who pushed the agenda of the Roman Pagan mother of God term. Slowly but surely over time, another gospel was to be established in order to introduce pagan mediators between man and God and in the process revert to building back up the icons and statues of pagan Rome to reflect another religion in the making, which was in vast contrast to the Apostolic Church pre 431AD.

It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen over time, as the tip toe to apostasy became evident and the handy work of God was exiled and the highway of God diverted to Rome and their elite class of noble lords who now became the many false christs/leaders and false prophets (religious techers).

The gatecrashers of the highway of God assumed their place in place of the Apostolic Church and in the process held onto this position with a strangle hold and a state based religious system of terror, that persecuted opposition and labelled heretics the handy work of God, that God originally used to setup his highway from the Apostles to the church fathers pre 431AD (Isaiah 19:23-25).

From a historical context we are looking at the hijacking of the highway of God by a line of roman emperors and their false christs/leaders and false religious prophets/teachers. The result are the schisms that followed, after the handy work of God, the Men of Nineveh were exiled and made into heretics from 431 AD (first schism) onwards.

Knowing history can free us from the religious chains of Rome.

We are to listen to God, by obeying Jesus and understand that when Jesus called the Men of Nineveh his handy work, they are, because throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament, God used these people, throughout history as his handy work. If people are not getting with the program of God, then they should, because knowing this fact is paramount to the final push at re-establishing the highway of God, but this time with a third player, the sons of Jacob who will also come and join with the Men of Nineveh in the final push towards Calvary, just before the second coming of Jesus Christ.

 

[Eloy Craft]

I was born in a culture that uses the term woman, for a female who has been sexually consummated by a man. Why not just accept facts my friend and just be done with it. Your not making valid arguments, in supporting your claim against a Jewish culture that uses terms in context to a female's situation.

The culture you were born in ? You just made my original point about your definition ...it is a modern mentality projected into minds in the past that didn't think the same way we do.

You are starting to make false statements, by saying that "Jesus said and did very little in the context of the Jewish culture of his time. He was establishing a new and radical culture".

Saying it's false is easy. "it's false" posting something that would explain why might help one agree.

I would like to ask you friend, what new and radical culture was he establishing, when he declared that salvation has come to the Jews first?

the Law and Temple sacrifices will not be needed anymore, Conquering death and sin, the cross, the Resurrection. These all ran counter to the Jewish culture of His day.

Now it appears in plain, that your responses are arguing against facts and this is where I give you comfort by saying....

Tell me which facts do you mean?

"The TRUTH, will set you free".

Ok. Yup.

 

[Eloy Craft]

but this we know: Jesus was fully God and fully man. His divinity and His humanity are not separate and yet, His divinity (as God) is eternal and did not originate with Mary. As a man Jesus had an earthly mother, as God, He does not. (And this is clearly true because we know from Scripture that God always existed and He created Mary. She, like all of us, has a beginning, God does not.)

You separate His divinity from His humanity. One has a mother the other does not.

You said, "His divinity (as God) is eternal." .So as man He isn't? So how is it that you don't separate Jesus' divinity from His humanity?

Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 21:6
And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

She, like all of us, has a beginning, God does not.)

Jesus didn't begin in His Mother's womb? Or is Jesus not God?

 

[Kenny'sID]

You made my point.

Now that was funny.

And what was that point?

Or did you just make mine and again do just what I was saying you did... put out another post that hopes/pretends to make a point but in reality means nothing?...we shall see from your answer.

 

[amariselle]

You separate His divinity from His humanity. One has a mother the other does not.

I guess you will persist in refusing to properly read and consider the entirety of my posts.

You said, "His divinity (as God) is eternal." .So as man He isn't?

Wait....so you believe that Christ’s earthly, physical, mortal body was eternal?

So how is it that you don't separate Jesus' divinity from His humanity?

I have explained this already. I’m not going to repeat myself.

Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Agreed. Christ’s sacrifice was always God’s plan. He knows the end from the beginning.

Revelation 21:6
And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Agreed. That confirms what I have said. God is eternal.

Jesus didn't begin in His Mother's womb?
Or is Jesus not God?

Jesus is most definitely God.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Jesus is most definitely God.

Didn't Jesus also begin to be?

 

[Eloy Craft]

Agreed.

What evidence do you have that the Word of God doesn't teach error? You deny there is anyone teaching without error.

All people are fallible. God is not, neither is His written word.

what about the Apostles. Were they fallible?

Of course it is. And much of it is not up for any kind of interpretation. If people need to be infallible for the word of God to be "expressed on earth", we are in serious trouble.

Just the teaching. Is there anyone teaching a doctrine that doesn't contain error? There was a Church that did.

There was, His name is Jesus. As He promised, He sent the Holy Spirit, Who is also God and teaches and leads without error. Human beings, however, are fallible. All of us.

Who is without error that is being led by the Holy Spirit? Jesus is not here to teach any more. He did send teachers though. He said those who hear them hear Him. Why did Jesus establish a teaching without error if it was not going to stay without error? If it were to become Just another work of men. Jesus said He wouldn't leave us orphans...I guess He did.

False. All true believers have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. There is no one on earth, no fallible human being that gets everything 100% correct all the time.

The Word of God gets everything right all the time. Who is teaching Word of god without error like the Apostles did? There is no expression of the Word of God on earth if no one is teaching it without error like the Apostles did. You agree the Word of God teaches without error.

 

[amariselle]

Didn't Jesus also begin to be?

Go back and read what I wrote. I have already answered that.